19 July 2011 early edition/transcript/Part 9
Part 9 DAMIAN COLLINS: Before I address my questions to the hearing, I just want to make a short declaration of my own, which is something that I previously declared to the Committee. My wife is an employee of a company called Edelman, which has been engaged by News Corporation. She has never worked on this account and has no access to information relating to it. I wanted to share that with you before asking any questions. Mr Rupert Murdoch, you said earlier that we live in a transparent society. Do you think it is right that people in public life can expect total privacy in a society like that? RUPERT MURDOCH: No. COLLINS: Where do you think the limits of that lie? I noticed that in the Watergate investigation, for example, that personal banking and phone records were used, belonging to one of the witnesses, that were relevant to that investigation. To what extent do you think the use of confidential, private information, even phone records and phone hacking, is permissible in the pursuit of a news story? RUPERT: I think phone hacking is something quite different. But I do believe that investigative journalism, particularly competitive, does lead to a more transparent and open society, inconvenient though that may be to many people. And I think we are a better society because of it. I think we are probably a more open society than even the United States. COLLINS: Where do you draw the line with that? Where are the boundaries of legitimate investigation? What is that about? RUPERT: There was a great—well if we'd done it there would have been a terrible outcry. I'm sorry to say this and I don't know your circumstances or those of anyone else around here, but when the Daily Telegraph bought a series of stolen documents of all the expenses of MPs it caused a huge outcry, one which I feel has not been properly addressed. I think there is an answer to it and we ought to look at the most open and clear society in the world, which is Singapore, where every Minister gets at least $1 million a year, and the Prime Minister a lot more, and there is no temptation and it is the cleanest society you would find anywhere. COLLINS: Good luck in selling that idea. RUPERT: I mean that seriously. It is ridiculous that people were reduced to doing what they did. JAMES MURDOCH: May I help, Mr Collins? It is a very good question and I think it is a really important question. I understand it is going to be one of the subjects of the judicial inquiry which the Prime Minister announced last week, which as a company we immediately welcomed and look forward to. This question of public interest and the question of what is acceptable and what isn't in terms of investigative techniques is an important one. But let me be very clear, the codes of conduct of News Corporation globally, for our employees, journalists or otherwise, are very clear: breaking the law is a very, very serious matter. People who are lawbreakers should be held to account. In the matter of something like phone hacking or, topically, payments to police and things like that, we just don't think they should have any place in our business. COLLINS: So, James Murdoch, you would be very clear that within your company and within your organisation, senior people should have been very aware that phone hacking was not only illegal, but totally unacceptable. JAMES: I think, particularly in light of the successful prosecutions and convictions of the individuals involved in 2007, it could not be taken more seriously. If new evidence emerges, as it has in cases, the company acts on it very, very quickly. COLLINS: To what extent do you think that you have a cultural problem? Rupert Murdoch, if I may? Do you think you have a cultural problem within your organisation in that people only tell you things that they think you want to hear and that even people who have been your trusted advisers and worked with you for years simply withhold information, because they want to curry favour? RUPERT: No, not my trusted advisers certainly. You should hear the conversations in my office. They are coming in all the time and arguing. Most people say I've got crazy ideas and fight against me. COLLINS: Forgive me, I am asking because a lot of your trusted advisers have left your company. RUPERT: We are a very big company. I am sure there may be people who try to please me. That could be human nature, and it's up to me to see through that. COLLINS: To what extent do you think there is pressure on editors and senior managers to get scoops, to outdo each other and to win favour within the organisation that leads them to take risks and, clearly in the case of News of the World, push boundaries that broke the law? RUPERT: Can you ask that again? I am sorry. COLLINS: Do you think there was a pressure on editors of your newspapers that leads them to take risks and break boundaries? In the News of the World, there was illegal action and wrongdoing, and people broke the law in order to get scoops. RUPERT: No, I think that's totally wrong. There is no excuse for breaking the law at any time. There is an excuse, if I may say so, and I think rightful, for all newspapers when they wish to, to campaign for a change in the law, but never to break it. I just want to say that I was brought up by a father who was not rich, but who was a great journalist, and he, just before he died, bought a small paper, specifically in his will saying that he was giving me the chance to do good. I remember what he did and what he was most proud of, and for which he was hated in this country by many people for many, many years, was exposing the scandal at Gallipoli, which I remain very, very proud of. COLLINS: I think that all students of history are well aware of that. RUPERT: That just addresses the question of it being a family business. I would love to see my sons and daughters follow if they are interested. COLLINS: If I may, Rupert Murdoch, you said earlier on that you have had frequent meetings with Prime Ministers during your career. RUPERT: I wish they would leave me alone. COLLINS: In the period after the arrest of Clive Goodman—you said earlier that you were aware of the situation when he was sent to prison and you were aware of the case at that stage—where there were numerous reports, investigations and hearings of this Committee, about which we have heard a lot today, did any senior politicians that you were in contact with during that period of time raise this as an issue with you, raise concerns about phone hacking or— RUPERT: Absolutely never. The politician I met most in those days was Mr Brown when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. His wife and my wife struck up quite a friendship, and our children played together on many occasions. I am very sorry that I am no longer—I thought he had great values, which I shared with him, and I am sorry that we have come apart. I hope one day that we'll be able to put it together again COLLINS: One final question, you said in your interview that you gave to The Wall Street Journal that you thought that your fellow executives at News Corporation had handled this crisis very well with just a few minor mistakes. Do you stand by that statement or do you believe the level of mistakes was far greater than that? RUPERT: They seem very big now. What we did was terrible, but you're talking about handling the crisis—I am sorry, my son has just told me not to gesticulate. I don't believe that either he or Mr Hinton made any great mistakes. Were mistakes made within the organisation? Absolutely. Were people that I trusted or that they trusted badly betrayed? Yes. COLLINS: Finally, to James Murdoch, it was reported that when Rebekah Brooks spoke to staff to announce the closure of News of the World, she said that in a year's time they might understand why the paper had to close. I won't ask you to comment on what she thought in saying that, but what is the significance of the period of time of a year? Do you expect there to be significantly more revelations that, with hindsight, made the closure of News of the World inevitable? JAMES: I can't speak to what she was specifically referring to. She made those comments herself when she was saying goodbye, sadly, to the staff. I can say that what happened at the News of the World—the events leading up to the 2007 affairs and prosecutions and what we know about those things now—were bad. They are things that should not have any place in our organisation, and they are things that we are unreservedly and sincerely sorry for. We have not seen the end of this in terms of the ongoing police investigations. As you know, Mr Collins, a number of people have been arrested. We don't know what is going to happen in the future around those things, but given the breach of trust and given the allegations that were emerging at a rapid pace, it was clear to me, and the future will bear this out—without any specific knowledge of the future, obviously—that it was the right thing for the paper to cease publication. COLLINS: Your father said in his Wall Street Journal interview that you, Mr James Murdoch, "acted as fast as he could, the moment he could." Does that suggest that you were held back at any point? Have you been frustrated in this process over the past few weeks? JAMES: As I said to the Committee earlier—I cannot remember to which Member; my apologies—this has been a frustrating process. My frustration—my real anger—to learn that new evidence was emerging as late as the end of 2010 was real, and is real. What I have done, and what the company has tried to do, is take new information, adjust our course, behave with propriety, behave quickly, behave in a humble way with respect to what has happened and with respect to trying to put it right. That is what we are trying to do. It was enormously frustrating. That does not mean that I have any knowledge of anyone intentionally misleading me and the company. I don't, which makes it doubly frustrating. We are where we are. New information emerged through the legitimate due process of a civil trial. The company acted on it as fast as could possibly be expected. Actually, still new information, or new allegations are emerging, and we are trying to deal with them in as right a way as we can and in the best way possible.